UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4723

LINDA THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CR-95-493-AW)

Submitted: April 30, 1998

Decided: May 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michele A. Ferris-Hansen, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne

A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Stuart A. Berman, Assistant

United States Attorney, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Linda Thompson was convicted by a jury of one count

each of conspiracy to commit postal robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994))

and aiding and abetting in the robbery of a post office (18 U.S.C.

§ 2114 (1994)). On appeal she alleges that the district court erred by

admitting too much evidence concerning her addiction to heroin and

that this excess evidence prejudiced the jury. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm.

Thompson worked at the Lanham, Maryland, post office. By the

summer and early fall of 1994, she was addicted to heroin, deeply in

debt, and close to losing her job. The record discloses that Thompson

used the drug nearly every day and that her habit cost $40-$60 per

day, or approximately $1500 per month.1 Thompson frequently visited a known drug area in Washington, D.C., to buy and use heroin.

Thompson eventually became close friends with another heroin addict

named Anthony "Pee Wee" McDonald ("McDonald"). Thompson and

McDonald often used heroin together, and McDonald occasionally

bought heroin for Thompson when she could not afford to purchase

it herself.

In September 1994, Thompson approached McDonald, who she

knew was a convicted robber, and asked him if he was interested in

robbing the post office where she worked. Thompson brought

McDonald into the employee area of the post office, showed him the

layout, and told him when and where the truck would arrive to pick

up the day's receipts. Thompson also suggested that the robbery occur

on a Saturday when fewer people would be around. McDonald and

_________________________________________________________________

1 At the time, Thompson's take-home pay was approximately $2200

per month, and the Government presented evidence showing that her

non-drug expenses exceeded this amount.

 2
two other accomplices robbed the post office the next month, entering

through the employee entrance. Police eventually apprehended

McDonald, and he confessed to the crime and implicated the other

conspirators.2

At trial, the Government presented evidence concerning Thompson's drug addiction under two theories. First, the Government sought

to place the crime in context by establishing Thompson's relationship

with McDonald. Second, the Government wanted to show that

Thompson was in great financial distress, which it asserted provided

a motive for committing the charged offenses. The defense made a

motion in limine to limit the amount of evidence presented, but the

district court denied the motion.

We review the district court's decision to admit evidence concerning Thompson's drug addiction for abuse of discretion, and we will

not reverse that decision unless it was "arbitrary and irrational." See

United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87 (4th Cir. 1996). Because we find

that the evidence was properly admitted under both of the Government's theories, we find no such abuse here.3

While Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) generally prohibits the use of prior bad

acts as evidence against an accused, that prohibition does not apply

when the other criminal acts are "inextricably intertwined" or "were

necessary preliminaries" to the charged offenses. Chin, 83 F.3d at 88.

We agree with the district court's conclusion that it was necessary to

explore the extent of Thompson's relationship with McDonald to

show that she was the one who provided the inside information which

allowed McDonald to rob the post office in the manner in which it

was robbed. Moreover, even if Rule 404(b) governed the evidence in

question, we find that the district court properly applied the test set

forth in United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244 (4th Cir. 1988), and

found that the challenged evidence was relevant to an issue other than

_________________________________________________________________

2 McDonald testified against Thompson at her trial.

3 We note that Thompson does not challenge the Government's right to

introduce evidence of her drug addiction; in fact, she offered at trial to

stipulate that she was a heroin addict. Rather, Thompson alleges that at

some unspecified point in the trial the Government presented too much

evidence on this issue and that she was prejudiced thereby.

 3
character (namely, Thompson's motive for committing the offenses),

was necessary and reliable, and that its probative value outweighed

the danger of unfair prejudice.

We therefore affirm Thompson's convictions and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4